User talk:UniReb

Happy editing, Mo (talk) 03:00, 1 September 2005 (EST)

[edit] VFD on Eighty Years' War (1914-1995)

I do not understand how you can give the article a weak keep to stay Eighty Years' War (1914-1995). This is 100% original research which is 100% forbidden in this encyclopedia. Please re-consider your vote. Thanks. Andries 21:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New stub template

Hi. We over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting have just discovered your new stub template {{State forest-stub}}. Normally, stub categories are created after a process of proposal and debate at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, to ensure that they meet the requirements for a new stub category—such as not cutting across the current category hierarchy, having a viable number of stub articles (a mininmum of 60), and not being covered by any current categories. You appear to be on a state forest kick, so it's probably a good split. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 13:19, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] E. Poole

_ _ Thanks for your contribution on List of people by name: El. I have moved her to List of people by name: Po, since she is likely to be sought under Poole, E. (and perhaps Pole, E.) but not under her given name.
_ _ If you've a longer-term interest in adding names to LoPbN's list, it would probably also be worth clicking on an edit of the "Pol" section, to see how i reformated it. (I make a point of providing a lk to the edit screen, rather than the page, since you would miss a lot if you looked at the article page but not the edit screen.) The 2nd comment is there to preserve for other editors (who may be interested in creating such an article) the information you provided, since in its original form it impedes rather than furthering the navigational purpose of the LoPbN tree: the detail offers no help in locating the specific E. Poole that a user has in mind, and it would be far more valuable in her future bio article itself.
--Jerzy·t 20:23, 2005 August 14 (UTC)

[edit] Great edits

...On Massachusetts-related articles.

Take care, D. J. Bracey (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I noticed you going through the tedious task of adding a Massachusetts template to all MA towns that lacked it, and I also came here to thank you for your good work. So thanks! LizardWizard 19:09, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Antarctica

Just looking at this, I feel that it is really too large to be a template and is encroaching on what a category is designed to do. You may want to look at splitting it up into Template:Research stations of Antarctica, Template:Islands of Antarctica etc. Evil Monkey∴Hello 02:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it's filling up screen space with random links that are readily available elsewhere, not to mention it's incomplete and gives a misleading view of our coverage. Stan 04:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stub articles like Salem Channel (Massachusetts)

Please add stub notices to short articles You create, like {{US-northeast-geo-stub}} for Massachusetts related geographical articles. Here's a full list of stubs: Wikipedia:Stub_categories. Happy editing, feydey 20:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

In addition, you don't need to add "(Massachusetts)" to most of the article titles. Those are used for disambiguation, where there are multiple articles that have the same name, like John Williams or Mercury. RADICALBENDER★ 00:26, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Really minor rocks

Hi! I've got some friendly concerns about some of the pages you're creating for some very minor geographical features. In particular, I'm not entirely convinced that things like Bass Rock (Norfolk County, Massachusetts) and Abbot Rock need their own articles. Both of these are basically just single hunks of rock that at some tides aren't even above the water; I'm looking at them on nautical charts here and here. I'd argue that having a name does not make them notable or useful in an encyclopedia. Mariners give names to endless minor features that they might encounter; these names are a necessary tool for navigation and communication, but most aren't really very important otherwise. Of course, some isolated rocks are notable; some are major hazards with a long history of causing trouble, or they're really important regional landmarks (like Fastnet Rock), but most rocks you can get a list of geographical names are not like this.

Anyway, I'm going to submit your three Bass Rock entries to VFD here to see what other people think. Please don't take this personally; I'm just looking for consensus on these features. My friendly suggestion is that you wait to see what the consensus is before putting too much effort into this. CDC (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I feel that is too fine-grained geographical detail. I have submitted Apple Island for a VfD just to see what the consensus about entries like this is. The general sentiment is that this stub should go into Logan International Airport, where it sits in its proper context, and that is what I think too. May I suggest that instead of informormation into atomic bits to merge geographic features into the area or municipality that they live in to provide useful context. See also my comment on the VfD for the three Bass Rocks. Pilatus 12:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Images

It seems that you uploaded several images that appear on websites with the GFDL tag. Images are generally copyrighted, and it looks that the websites do not put them under the GFDL. I am going to list those for deletion. Pilatus 12:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Images follow:

1. Myles Standish Industrial Park.jpg
2. Town of Marblehead 1912.jpg
3. Aerial View of Winter Island.jpg
4. William Standish Knowles.jpg
5. Milford New Hampshire flag.gif)
6. Milford New Hampshire 01.jpg

Please check the others, there are quite a few that are under the wrong license or should not be here. Pilatus 13:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alphabetical list of Taunton streets

Hi! I do feel that Wikipedia is not a directory, and that material is more data than information. I have submitted the page for a VfD (and should have contacted you before that, sorry). Pilatus 12:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AfD votes

Howdy. Please don't vote on every nomination. If you don't have an opinion on an article, there is no need to cast an abstain vote. Cheers, android79 12:48, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

• It's my right, civic duty, and obligation to voice my opinion and cast any vote I deem necessary. Also, I've read the AfD and I'm not breaking any rules! :-P UniReb 12:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Norjumtandh

You canged your vote - was this because you were able to verify it? If so, please let me know and I'll change mine. --Doc (?) 18:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• I found some kind of possibly-reliable verification for the article, referenced from NODEWORKS ENCYCLOPEDIA. It seems that Norjumtandh was one of three children of Skuld. UniReb 19:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • That link goes to a Wikipedia mirror, which means that "Norjumtandh" was probably referenced in our own Skuld article at some point. android79 19:19, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, I know. I changed my vote and commented why. Sorry! UniReb 19:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shooting Fish

You voted on the article's deletion, however there was also a film by that name which Sabine's Sunbird and I have edited the article to refer to. Note the film is linked to from both the Kate Beckinsale and Stuart Townsend articles. I hope you will reconsider your vote in light of this information. Steve block talk 21:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Taunton, Massachusetts businesses

Please don't create articles that are basically lists of external links. An article that has no content other than a list of external links can be speedily deleted. Also see What Wikipedia is not, especially the section "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." FreplySpang (talk) 04:26, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
I didn't create any articles that are basically lists of external links. Whatever articles I have created has significant content to it, although additional information may be needed to be added on at a later time. I surely know that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and I hope everyone remembers that and follows by those guidelines as I do. I don't know where or how you may think whatever article that I have created may seem other than relevant information but I can assure it does have a notable purpose to it. Thank you very much for your time and dually-noted opinion. Do take care for now! :-) UniReb 04:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Specifically, the article List of Taunton, Massachusetts businesses is a list of external links. Try looking at it from the point of view of someone who doesn't live in the Taunton area. Also, we do not generally have articles called List of Anytown, Anystate businesses. That level of detail is more like a phone book than an encyclopedia. Regards, FreplySpang (talk) 04:41, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 192.35.98.96

I was wondering why you went straight to {{test4}} on User talk:192.35.98.96? Is it a vandal reappearing under a different IP? -Splash^talk 22:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Trouble is, though, that an admin won't block if they vandalize again after just that one warning. They get 4 warnings before they're blocked unless they're doing something really serious. So to jump to test4 straight off is to make rather empty threats. Best to start at {{test1}} and work up. Usuaully, just knowing they're being watched is enough to stop them! -Splash^talk 22:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Regions of Rhode Island

Hi. I was wondering what the source is for "the seven designated regions of Rhode Island" you list on Template:Rhode Island (and made pages for)? I ended up on the page from working on the Blackstone Valley page, one of said regions. I'd like to include on that page a description of BV as a region of RI, which may not match its meaning as defined by the National Historic Corridor agency. Thanks. ScottMainwaring 00:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar

I've just been looking at some of your contributions. By the way, "off of" is ungrammatical. The correct expression is simply "off". -- Smjg 11:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Welcome to the Puerto Rico WikiProject. If you have any questions or ideas please don't hesitate to ask/suggest. Joelito 00:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Puerto Rico Project Collaboration of the month

Hello UniReb. It is my intent to begin a Collaboration of the month for the Puerto Rico Wikiproject. I have suggested Politics of Puerto Rico and Economy of Puerto Rico as options for the collaboration for May. Please leave suggestions or comments on the talk page or vote for any of the choices I have suggested. Take care. Joelito 16:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Portugal

I've noticed that you created a template with a summary of topics related to Portugal, however, I have major concerns about its usefulness, content and layout. First of all, I haven't found any similar template in wikipedia and the concept of such template is not found, for example, in Wikiproject Countries. Along with this, there's also a template that included such topics, you may find it in the "see also" section of the Portugal article. About the content, I don't think that Portugal is subdivided into three main structures, such as Madeira, Azores and Continent, that's a very personal (and archaic) view of the Portuguese subdivisions. Further, the subdivisions (NUTS III) are not administrative entities, they are just statistical divisions, so, if we include statistical divisions, why not include the tourism regions or health regions. One may think that Minho-Lima (for example) is a major subdivision of the country, when it is mainly used for European Union statistical works. Of course the municipality is a major subdivision of Portugal, after the national government we find the municipal structures, the districts are just remains of the past structure with minor competences, the template misses all that things. About the layout, I don't find it very attractive or consistent, why have an entire line to say that the capital is Lisbon? And why the History, Politics, Geography, etc, links? As I said, they can be found in the Portugal topics, this last is a useful resource and exists in several other country articles. I really appreciate your effort, and I'm very happy with finding another contributor interested in Portuguuese related topics, I don't feel like the owner of anything, I just wanted to share my opinion with you and receive some feedback. Thanks! Afonso Silva 18:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The point is that the subidivisions of Portugal is tagged for cleanup for some reason, mainly because it lacks accuracy and it is much more like original research. It is not a reference article, no way. Let's say that we remove the useless (in my point of view and only in the template) NUTS III regions and that thing of the continental Portugal from the template, we'll finish with a template with the districts, which is what we had before. I don't really think it is a problem of color or something like that, I think the template is inaccurate. Along with that, 90% of it is about subdivisions and then we have the culture, history, etc. links, why should we have a massive template with links to all minor regions of Portugal in the Culture of Portugal article? I agree we can create a general "Portugal" template, but this structure seems inappropriate. Afonso Silva 20:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Puerto Ricans

One of the main concerns about the "list" is that it is getting out of control and that many names of people who have only had their "15 minutes of fame" or simply are non-notables are being added. I propose that we set up guidelines as to who should be admitted with a clear definition as to the terms "notable" and "fame". I am calling upon the parties interested to express their opinion and to help develope these guidelines. I believe that after we take a vote and reach a censensus, said guidelines should be followed and posted either on the article or the articles talk page. We need your help. Tony the Marine 19:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Please particpate here: [2]

[edit] Camp Myles Standish images

Several Camp Myles Standish images are listed on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images, because it is missing information on in what way the owner of the copyright have released the rights of the image. Please go to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images and discuss there. Thanks! // Liftarn

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Aerial shot of southwest corner of Point Roberts.jpg

[edit] Bagwell Island

Can you tell me more about this place? Any references of photos? Thanks! Rarelibra 21:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canary Island in Massachusetts.

After some digging, since it seemed to have no Google hits, I finally found Canary Island in Massachusetts via MapQuest. Assuming that it's the same one (a tiny, seemingly former island in the river near Northampton), it frankly seems too impossibly small to be worthy of an article. Is there anything of note about the island should an article ever be written? I mean, I don't know, so if there is, fine, but otherwise, I think Canary Island should go back to being a redirect to the Canary Islands.

Any thoughts on the issue would be appreciated. Thanks. SnowFire 02:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:BCC16.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BCC16.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Bunker_Hill_Community_College.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bunker_Hill_Community_College.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images of Taunton

The problem with the images I deleted and removed from Taunton, Massachusetts and related articles is not that they weren't "relevant", but that they aren't freely licensed. The tag on Image:Bristol County Superior Courthouse.jpg is wrong, because it's a work of the Massachusetts government, not the U.S. federal government. The U.S. government puts all its works into the public domain, but the Mass government doesn't. The image is NOT public domain. It's easy to take pictures of buildings oneself, so there's no excuse at all for uploading other people's pictures of buildings. Images of buildings are not among the restricted group of images allowed under a fair use claim. And if you upload images from web sites and claim that they are PD or GFDL, when the source web site gives no reason to believe that, you're making a false representation and liable to get yourself blocked. Remember, every picture is copyrighted unless there's a specific reason to believe it isn't! Lack of an explicit copyright statement does not mean the picture is public domain. —Angr 13:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyrights

Hi UniReb. I've removed incorrect or unexplained copyright tags from the following images that you have uploaded:

• Image:Bristol Probate and Family Court.JPG
• Image:Cape Cod Community College.jpg
• Image:MtWachusettCC.jpg
• Image:Bcc.jpg
• Image:Myles Standish Industrial Park.jpg

I've explained the reason on each image's description page. One major issue that you need to be aware of is that Massachusetts state workers are not employees of the U.S. federal government, and works that they produce are not automatically in the public domain. Also, images, such as the last one I've listed, that are published on the web without a copyright notice are still subject to copyright protection. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Copyrights,Wikipedia:Public domain, and Wikipedia: Image use policy for more information.

Also, it looks like a number of your uploads from 2005 are incorrectly tagged as {{PD-release}} or {{GFDL}}. Unless the image's copyright holder has explicitly agreed to release their work to PD or under the GFDL, these are not the correct tags to use. Would you please go through your upload log and review each of the images that you have uploaded. I am willing to help you, if you like. If you have any questions about any of this, feel free to ask me or to post a question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thanks. ×Meegs 18:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maffitt Ledge

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Maffitt Ledge, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Oo7565 17:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Wheaton College Campus Norton Massachusetts.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Wheaton College Campus Norton Massachusetts.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 16:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)